Women & Children > Men ?

Peyton Manning

Was watching Sky News earlier and they were talking about some situation in Kenya (I think some groups set fire to a church or something) and over 50 people were killed, but the way Sky News reported it was a bit retarded to be honest.

"Up to 50 people, including many women and children are believed to have been killed"

Does this mean that it was more of a tragedy because women and children were killed? Somehow the loss of a mans life is less significant? Or maybe no men were killed at all because it doesnt mention any...? Stupid Sky News. Rant over.

Sleepy

I've always thought that the 'women and children' first thing stems from the viability of repopulating after a disaster. Children are clearly the future and a small amount of men could get a large amount of women pregnant which can't be said to be true in reverse. It seems like something in our collective conscience is wired to think this way.

humbert

They are conventionally innocent victims as opposed to the agitators, not of greater worth.

mike65

Men are always worth less, you only have to look at health campaigns for various illnesses and conditons. Breast cancer is "sexy", testicular or prostate hardly mentioned.

Mike.

Lockstep

We all know women and children are incapable of violence.


I think it stems from the idea that women and children are weaker than men and need protection. Leftover from the middle ages maybe, chivalry etc.

Although in fairness children do usually need to be protected.

Pighead

mike65 wrote: »

Men are always worth less, you only have to look at health campaigns for various illnesses and conditons. Breast cancer is "sexy", testicular or prostate hardly mentioned.

Mike.

Thats because breasts look sexier than a hairy ballsack. If Pigheads balls were shapely, supple and hairless with a nipple on the end of each one then testicular would also become sexy.

cornbb

humbert wrote: »

They are conventionally innocent victims as opposed to the agitators, not of greater worth.

Thats an excellent point.

However, while I can see the sense in prioritising the safety of children, why should the safety of a woman be put ahead of that of a man in a situation where he is no more of a combatant/agitator than her? Feminism was/is a campaign for equal rights, I might get burned alive for saying this but I was under the impression that things like having doors held open, getting helped off the Titanic before the men, etc, were for the chop as well as all the unpleasant stuff (lack of a vote, domestic violence, inferior pay etc etc etc.)

Pigman II

Archimedes wrote: »

"Up to 50 people, including many women and children are believed to have been killed"

That could also read as "including many women and children" just to remind the reader that women and children count as people too nowadays.

So instead of thinking Sh1t! 50 People killed? You can console yourself in the realisation that not all of them were important members of society.

It's basically an upbeat way to report bad news.

monosharp

Archimedes wrote: »

"Up to 50 people, including many women and children are believed to have been killed"

I think its because women and children are seen as more defenceless than men (sorry PC feminist brigade) against these groups who I assume would be mostly men.

Its probably a historical cultural thing where men are expected to fight to protect women/children/elderly.

ztoical

Archimedes wrote: »

"Up to 50 people, including many women and children are believed to have been killed"

short answer:
Men usual start all the wars so its their own fault if they get killed

long answer
I think it was more to imply that civilans were killed as opposed to soilders. Most countries, esp those if africa, wouldn't have women in their armed forces or in the rebel groups. You do get children forced to be soilders [always boys, the girls get to be rapped] but its always suppose to be sad when children die......I guess not a big fan of kids to be honest.

Honestly thou sky always goes for the big dramatic reporting -they have to milk it out with "women and children" *tear* dramatic pause rather then just saying including a "number of civilians".

WindSock

Because Women and children are less likely to have anything to do with the fighting, therefore are the innocent victims. As for Women and children being helped off the Titanic first, that was in an age when the children were looked after by their Mothers. Would it havve made much sense to let Fathers and children off and let their Mothers die, only to have the children go to an Orphanage?

6th

mike65 wrote: »

Men are always worth less, you only have to look at health campaigns for various illnesses and conditons. Breast cancer is "sexy", testicular or prostate hardly mentioned.

Mike.

Guys don't need to be reminded to play with their balls and despite what pron teaches guys wimminz dont sit in all day squeezin' their boobiez .... yes, I did say boobiez.

So, wimminz .... check yizzer boobs. Guys ... as you were.

Peyton Manning

6th wrote: »

Guys don't need to be reminded to play with their balls and despite what pron teaches guys wimminz dont sit in all day squeezin' their boobiez .... yes, I did say boobiez.

So, wimminz .... check yizzer boobs. Guys ... as you were.

Funny, but true!

Maximilian

Maybe they just say it to reinforce the concept that women & children are in fact people too.

Pherekydes

It's not just Sky that give this slant to the news. Every agency does it. Next time there's a plane crash (God forbid) check out the reportage:

"57 people died in the crash, including 2 Irish/British people."

Remember the tsunami? All those British, Swedes, Irish and other (white) Europeans. Such a tragedy. Oh yeah, there were 250000 Indonesians, Sri Lankans and Thais killed, too.

A Dub in Glasgo

It is more of a tragedy when children are slaughtered

aidan24326

Maximilian wrote: »

Maybe they just say it to reinforce the concept that women & children are in fact people too.

I doubt that. They could just report it as '50 people, including innocent civilians'.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It is more of a tragedy when children are slaughtered

Is it though? I'm 31. I get killed by a terrorist bomb (say) as an innocent defenceless bystander. Is my life worth less than a 12 year old boy in the same situation? If so then why?

I accept the explanation about saving the women and children to protect the future etc but that's not why it's reported like that in the news. You feel they're just going for extra teary-eyed dramatic effect.

Eric Cartman

i think it should be acceptable for the media to use it f there talking about a war but an accident or like a train crash or something, no

easyontheeye

does this mean that its all mens fault for all violence in the world today? it kinda is though isnt it

fly_agaric

easyonthe eye wrote:

does this mean that its all mens fault for all violence in the world today?

No. Men commit most of the violence but I don't think that means it is all their/(our) "fault".

Plenty of violent women.

The women whove managed to climb to the top of the greasy pole have been just as eager to go to war as male politicians.

Women have (and do) encouraged (encourage) men to fight for them.

Women on the "winning" side don't ever seem to turn their nose up at the spoils of war, conquest, genocide etc.

Jack Sheehan

Perhaps this has something to do with that old custom of 'women and children first' (On ships etc).

Reku

Was actually thinking about this the other day when there was a bit on the news about a "female police officer" (can only assume it was in Britain, didn't listen too intently as people being shot is not big news for me:() being shot, why mention it was a female at all, surely the fact that a police officer was shot should be enough concern for people? Or are women still such a rarity in the police force that it's *gasp* "We're going to lose one of our few female constables!!!!"?
Whenever a male police officer or Garda gets shot they never seem to refer to the fact of him being male, simply saying that a police officer/Garda was shot. Or is this based in that people still presume male when they hear police officer/Garda.

daveharnett

Yes, in survival situations children>women>men still does and should apply.

Children because
A: They are not as good at fighting/swimming/whatever.
B: They will outlive us anyway, given the oppertunity.

Women can be as equal as they like, but they are still different:
A: Not as good at fighting/swimming/whatever.
B: Better at looking after children.
C: More important in evolutionary terms.

This set of priorities is used by the media to be provocative. They will only stop doing it when we stop caring about the distinction (hopefully never).
Thousands of evolutionary and social programming are not wrong on this one.

Jesus Wept

Loadahbollix.

Equal rights my arse.

Capt'n Midnight

You'll fit more women and children in a lifeboat than men because they are generally smaller.

SKY, news - it's edutainment at best. If Prince William got done for speeding then guess what most of the program would be about ?

davyjose

humbert wrote: »

They are conventionally innocent victims as opposed to the agitators, not of greater worth.

Took the words out of my mouth...

Lockstep

Women are capable of pushing people into conflict, even when they are not themselves fighting.


Example of World War I when women went around handing white feathers to young men accusing them of cowardice for not enlisting.

davyjose

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Women are capable of pushing people into conflict, even when they are not themselves fighting.


Example of World War I when women went around handing white feathers to young men accusing them of cowardice for not enlisting.

Hang on, a war started by men, with propaganda created by men. Do you think WW1 would have happened if women were in charge? I don't.

faceman

WindSock wrote: »

Because Women and children are less likely to have anything to do with the fighting, therefore are the innocent victims. As for Women and children being helped off the Titanic first, that was in an age when the children were looked after by their Mothers. Would it havve made much sense to let Fathers and children off and let their Mothers die, only to have the children go to an Orphanage?

you've obviously never seen China O'Brien!!

Reku

davyjose wrote: »

Hang on, a war started by men, with propaganda created by men. Do you think WW1 would have happened if women were in charge? I don't.

Strange then if women are so placid and innocent that they are catching up on men WRT committing violent crimes.

davyjose

farohar wrote: »

Strange then if women are so placid and innocent that they are catching up on men WRT committing violent crimes.

That's society's fault -- a society ruled by men

Lockstep

davyjose wrote: »

Hang on, a war started by men, with propaganda created by men. Do you think WW1 would have happened if women were in charge? I don't.

I never said anything of the sort.


I said women were capable of pushing men into the conflict even when not actors in the war themself.

Dave!

Slow coach wrote: »

It's not just Sky that give this slant to the news. Every agency does it. Next time there's a plane crash (God forbid) check out the reportage:

"57 people died in the crash, including 2 Irish/British people."

Remember the tsunami? All those British, Swedes, Irish and other (white) Europeans. Such a tragedy. Oh yeah, there were 250000 Indonesians, Sri Lankans and Thais killed, too.

That might also have something to do with the audience that the news station has... RTÉ will say, "including 10 Irish people", because it's Irish people watching the station, so they will be more interested* in what happens to the Irish people.

*Irish people are more likely to KNOW/be related to Irish people, so if for example there's an explosion in Alicante, Spain, I'd like to know if any Irish people were hurt in case my aunt was involved. If soldiers are killed in Afghanistan, you can bet there'll be alot of anxious parents in Britain wondering if it was their own child -- but if it turns out that "no British soldiers were involved", then they can rest easy for a while.

It's nothing to do with people not caring about Thais (see: huge financial donations, to support this)

Maximilian

davyjose wrote: »

Hang on, a war started by men, with propaganda created by men. Do you think WW1 would have happened if women were in charge? I don't.

Sure. The world would be much better with women rulers such as Margaret Thatcher. She was extremely popular and never went to war, as everyone knows. She was also a ride.

Catherine the Great was surely too busy riding to ever have fought wars.

That Joan of Arc one was a bit on the timid side as well but I reckon would be worth the ride all the same.

etc.

Lockstep

Maximilian wrote: »

Catherine the Great was surely too busy riding to ever have fought wars.

Beat me to it.

I was considering using Catherine the Great as an example but decided against it as I didnt want to be stirring things up.

And Thatcher?

BRavo. Excellent example/

Victor

With this particular storey, it appears many of the victims were elderly, women and children. Simply because that is who was sheltering there and they were the least capable of an escape.

Sleepy wrote: »

I've always thought that the 'women and children' first thing stems from the viability of repopulating after a disaster. Children are clearly the future and a small amount of men could get a large amount of women pregnant which can't be said to be true in reverse.

Are you saying a large amount of men couldn't get a small amount of women pregnant?

cornbb wrote: »

However, while I can see the sense in prioritising the safety of children, why should the safety of a woman be put ahead of that of a man in a situation where he is no more of a combatant/agitator than her?

The woman (age dependent) could be preganant. Not nothing anythign else, women tend to be smaller and less physically capable than men on average.

I was under the impression that things like having doors held open, getting helped off the Titanic before the men, etc,

There is a difference between chivalry, a patronising society and survival.

aidan24326 wrote: »

I doubt that. They could just report it as '50 people, including innocent civilians'.

But they were all civilians.

Is it though? I'm 31. I get killed by a terrorist bomb (say) as an innocent defenceless bystander. Is my life worth less than a 12 year old boy in the same situation? If so then why?

You have lived your live much more than the 12 year old. the 12 year old is likely, on average, to have a longer life expectancy than you.

I accept the explanation about saving the women and children to protect the future etc but that's not why it's reported like that in the news. You feel they're just going for extra teary-eyed dramatic effect.

Of course.

fly_agaric wrote: »

No. Men commit most of the violence but I don't think that means it is all their/(our) "fault". Plenty of violent women.

Most serious violence is caused by men aged 17-24.

The women whove managed to climb to the top of the greasy pole have been just as eager to go to war as male politicians.

This is kind of self selecting. To get to the top, the women need to be tough bitches. Then people are wondering why women on top are tough bitches.

Rb

Victor wrote: »

To get to the top, the women need to be tough bitches. Then people are wondering why women on top are tough bitches.

Indeed, and are often single and childless as they've dedicated their lives to their job/getting to the top. Hence, very little "human" interaction and therefore angry women with sand-paper like vaginas.

Fwiw, in the case of an emergency I > *.

skywalker

6th wrote: »

wimminz dont sit in all day squeezin' their boobiez .... yes, I did say boobiez.

Say it aint so! :eek:

One Cold Hand

Sleepy wrote: »

a small amount of men could get a large amount of women pregnant

Oh to be the one man that did survive in such a situation. It'd probably be worth losing a limb or two....

Jay D

Archimedes wrote: »

Was watching Sky News earlier and they were talking about some situation in Kenya (I think some groups set fire to a church or something) and over 50 people were killed, but the way Sky News reported it was a bit retarded to be honest.

"Up to 50 people, including many women and children are believed to have been killed"

Does this mean that it was more of a tragedy because women and children were killed? Somehow the loss of a mans life is less significant? Or maybe no men were killed at all because it doesnt mention any...? Stupid Sky News. Rant over.

do you know something, I have to say I always believed this.

People are people. I thought we moved away from this ****ing caveman mentality of 'women and children'. Now I for one believe anyway that Sky is one of the worst stations for news. How on earth 'news station of the year' is possible is completely beyond me unless it's some kind of sky awards thing, given that if it were to be an English/British thing BBC would easily win. They look at the most pathetic story lines in great detail, anything to fill the hour.

phasers

I hate to hear that on the news

no person should be valued over another

junior_apollo

phasers wrote: »

I hate to hear that on the news

no person should be valued over another

Yes yes... "we should all live in a society where everyone is equal" :eek: where have we heard this before?!!!


But of course some people will be more equal than others...

aidan24326

aidan24326 wrote:

Is it though? I'm 31. I get killed by a terrorist bomb (say) as an innocent defenceless bystander. Is my life worth less than a 12 year old boy in the same situation? If so then why?

Victor wrote: »

You have lived your live much more than the 12 year old. the 12 year old is likely, on average, to have a longer life expectancy than you.

That does not really answer the question. The 12 year old is automatically worth more just because he might live longer? Not to me. I would not give up my life for some random 12 year old that I don't even know, and I doubt many would.

I agree with the points about Sky News. How they get news station of the year is crazy. They're gone beyond a joke.

Jay D

aidan24326 wrote: »

Not to me. I would not give up my life for some random 12 year old that I don't even know, and I doubt many would.

seconded, I think think anyone that 'says' they would on here is either lying and looking to be praised or is a genuine idiot.

A Dub in Glasgo

Would you give up your life for your 90 year old grandparent or your 4 year grandson?

humbert

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Would you give up your life for your 90 year old grandparent or your 4 year grandson?

Of course not!

Maximilian

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Would you give up your life for your 90 year old grandparent or your 4 year grandson?

I would, if upon being struck down I would become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.